Arab cartoon of Condoleezza Rice
American and British travellers in the 1800s and 1900s, like Malcolm X, were surprised at the lack of racism among Arabs.
Ali Rattansi in “Racism: A Very Short Introduction” (2007) says of Arabs:
Disparaging conceptions of other peoples and a colour symbolism associating whiteness with goodness and blackness with negative qualities are evident in many Arab and Islamic texts and practices. But no consistent conflations of colour, culture, and physiology have been found to exist.
The Koran sees different skin colours as a good thing. Having a certain skin colour is not one of the duties of Islam.
Yet:
- Libya: Mass violence against blacks in 2000 and 2011.
- Sudan: Genocide against blacks in South Sudan in the 1990s, Darfur in the 2000s.
- Saudi Arabia: Had black slaves - slaves! – till at least 1962.
As we are constantly reminded by white commenters on this blog, Arab sold blacks as slaves for hundreds of years – and maybe still are.
And it is all too easy to find stuff like this written by Arabs:
Therefore the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.
That is from Ibn Khaldun in 1377, one of the greatest Arab minds ever.
You can find support in Arab writings for most of the American Jim Crow stereotypes: blacks are ugly, smell bad, lack intelligence, like music and dance, have rhythm, are joyful, rob people, have sex on the brain, are good in bed, etc. (To be fair, there were more fact-based accounts of blacks too, like those of Ibn Batuta.)
What is going on?
The short answer: Arabs are racist, prejudiced at least – but less than American and British travellers of the 1800s and 1900s.
The longer answer:
Islam did not allow Muslims to make slaves of other Muslims. So Arabs mainly got slaves from lands beyond the Muslim world: Europe, Central Asia, West Africa, Nubia, Ethiopia, East Africa, etc.
That meant, by an accident of history, most slaves were either lighter-skinned or darker-skinned than most Arabs. Since whites and blacks appeared in Arab society mainly as slaves, Arabs came to look down on both (though less so as their home societies grew in military strength).
Yes, they looked down on whites too. Here is Said al-Andalusi in the 1000s:
For those who live furthest north … their humors [are] raw, their bellies gross, their color pale, their hair long and lank. Thus they lack keenness of understanding and clarity of intelligence, and are overcome by ignorance and dullness, lack of discernment, and stupidity.
But racism never received the backing of law, religion and science like it did in America. It pretty much remained at the level of prejudice and snobbery. So much so that Aristotle’s idea that some are born to be slaves never caught on. Because slavery was based not on differences of race but of religion.
Sources: Bernard Lewis, “Race and Slavery in the Middle East” (1990); Ali Rattansi, “Racism: A Very Short Introduction” (2007); Ibn Batuta.
See also:
Abagond, I commend you for writing this post because more often than not, it is difficult to discuss this aspect of history without someone decrying “Orientalism” or “Islamophobia” in an attempt to shut you down.
@ T_ray
I’m bracing for impact.
People tend to say things that defend the right to incarcerate people for whatever value it may have. Enslaving someone is more this just religion, color or what other idea they might come up with. People of color have been lied to for thousands of years in order to robbed them of their freedom, land women and children to ensure pleasure for the conqueror. The conqueror needs an excuse to enslave someone to appease them own beliefs. No matter the faith, no matter color if you are enslaved it is not to a religion. It’s to people who think they have all the answers to LIFE. And because a people doesn’t know their tougue they are considered ignorant, TRUTH is the Light that will answer all mysteries.
A must-read to see the Darfur context and the intrusion of “race” in the form of the reference to “blacks” or “Black Africans” when they were never defined as “black” where they live:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/books/30fren.html?_r=0
Also, this (my Race Theory and Social Thought teacher, who is from Erythrea assigned us these readings and well as one on the Rwanda genocide, When Victims become Killers):
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mahmood-mamdani/the-politics-of-naming-genocide-civil-war-insurgency
and this :
http://blackagendareport.com/content/whats-really-happening-darfur-interview-mahmood-mamdani
It is very interesting to see Mamdani’s analysis of how American racial thinking invades other analyses of conflicts in particular in Africa.
I think it illustrates quite well your post, Abagond.
Abagond has a hard-on for whites and writes a lot of posts bashing them In response, whites often bring up arabs whom he generally gives a pass. This aggravates him because it gets in the way of his bashing whites. So he writes this post to say, See! I talked about it!” But its obvious he took a neutral and even slightly apologeticattitude towards the whole thing. Its not that he particularly likes arabs. It’s just that he didn’t want it to get in the way of his goal of portraying whites as the most evilest people in the whole wide world! haha
* I realize arabs and europeans are both caucasian. I’m distinguishing between arabs and other whites because most white americans are non arabic and those are the ones abagond appears to have a problem with.
[...] Arab Racism Against Blacks. [...]
I suspect that Abagond is being too lenient with regards to how badly the Arabs discriminate against Africans. I hope that he will write about colourism in the Middle East and how it affects perceptions and racism.
A post like this should be written in more than 500 words or should take three to four posts so as to do justice to the topic. Some Arabs are phenotypically black, even darker than, say, some people in Nigeria or Niger. It’s recorded in history books– mostly those dealing with pre-Islamic Arab societies– that some Arab ‘tribes’ were dark. And your experiences as an American has really coloured your views on race and SLAVERY. Slavery as conceived by Americans, especially black Americans, conjures the image of black slaves or slaves in general being treated like chattel. This, however, is not true of all societies that practised slavery. Slavery wasn’t despised in Africa. In fact, slaves in some precolonial and pre-transatlantic-slave-trade African societies were just like free men.
Quick note here, the term Arabs use in the Persian Gulf use blacks is “`Abeed” which means slave in Arabic.
sorry for the typo, the term arabs (in the petro kingdoms) for blacks is “abeed”, i.e. slave
In Sudan, “Arab” is more a cultural-linguistic term than race. The Janjaweed, who the media accused of committing genocide against the Darfurians were Arab by culture/language, but were “black” people.
@Persian Mo
Abeed is really “Abd,” and many Arabian names begin with Abd, like Abdullah (servant/worshipper of Allah). All people are Abd, to Muslims (i.e., servants of Allah), regardless of how some might use the word to denigrate Africans. The reason is that the Qu’ran associates the colour black with iniquity, owing to the early Muslims’ very difficult attempts to convert Africans to Islam.
churchs,
according to the US census, Arabs are white. Not special whites, but whites.
It’s funny you mention Condoleezza Rice though because there were apparently more than a few Arab leaders who were enamored with her. Ghaddafi had a treasured collection of Condi pictures, King Abdullah of Saudi gave her 300K worth of jewelry. I don’t think Albright or Clinton have inspired such affection…
@ Churches
Be advised that the designation “Caucasian” doesn’t really mean anything, as it has generally been applied to race in the past two centuries.
-Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(anthropology)#Typology
@ king
Anthropology is highly politicized but modern forensic anthropologists still use the topological model because its less politicized and has an accuracy of up to 95%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Physical_anthropology
Either way, I have no interest in having a continued discussion on the merits of the typological model with you. Not only is it off-topic, I couldn’t care less what you think about it.
@ Mel Arabs are not white they are semetic. However most of the so-called jews are in fact white.
@ Churches
No need to be so defensive. I was simply pointing out that nobody believes in that ancient model of classification any more – because it’s not based on anything but general looks. Feel free to continue believing in it if you wish. Only understand that what you are talking about is an arbitrary and artificial social construct.
Perhaps, but far less so than it was when they came up with the typological model which is 99% political 1% observational and 0% biological. In any case the vast MAJORITY of modern anthropologists of every discipline reject the Coon typological model based on modern genetic science, not politics.
Abagond, the issue of race in the Middle East is a slippery slope, and there are BIG differences between today’s situation and the days of Ibn Battuta…
It would be wrong to claim that race is not intimately linked to social status in North Africa and in the Middle East. But this is just as much the case in the present-day US. Your cited comment; “a colour symbolism associating whiteness with goodness and blackness with negative qualities” is just as applicable today in these United States, particularly in our mass media.
Saudi Arabian slavery? It still exists today, only it most often ensnares domestic workers from (impoverished) South Asian and/or African nations. No one, even in the Arab world, holds Saudi up as any positive example of humanity. Only Americans “look the other way” and call them allies because they have oil.
Sudanese genocide? That has both racial and religious overtones, which is not the same as race hatred alone. Sudan is a mixed-up mess whose government has tried to privilege “Arab” Sudanese – themselves a mix of African and Arab – over “Black” Sudanese, most notably in murdering both Dinka and Darfurians. But I have many, many northern Sudanese friends who consider themselves both black and African and Arab. They describe the day-to-day attitudes of some northern Sudanese the way one could easily describe the attitudes of a majority of US rappers, professional athletes and media entertainers (i.e., light is right, black get back, straight hair-as-a-necessity and kinky hair-is-a-hot-mess).
Libyan racist attacks? Yes, but these are also directed at migrant workers, which adds a layer of complexity you do not mention by simply stating that Libyans have violently targeted blacks. I am unsure as to the situation for Libya’s indigenous black tribes – who speak the local language/dialect, etc. And while it may not be especially comfortable for them, they are a better barometer of the general “Arab attitudes” than those directed to migrant workers.
In other words, yes – Arab culture(s) have a chequered-to-poor record of dealing with black people in general. Kind of like the United States. But just like in Europe, and Asia, the “general attitudes” don’t always apply, and aren’t always indicative of what YOUR experience, as an individual who happens to be black, might be in those places. Let’s not forget that the treatment of blacks in this country – current black president notwithstanding – is also, if we are “generally speaking,” far from good, either in public representation (see: Ann Coulter national gun problem explanation) or in statistical fact (see: numbers of working poor, receiving sub-standard medical care, etc., etc).
@ Keema
If I did not bring up Libya, Sudan and Saudi Arabia it would be brought up and it would look like I was whitewashing things. On the other hand, the post makes it clear, I hope, that what looks like straight-forward racism from an American point of view probably is not that simple, that race plays a part but probably not the main part.
The Libya case certainly deserves a post of its own. I already wrote about Darfur and South Sudan – the links are under See Also.
I am in NO WAY excusing American racism. But commenters frequently bring up Arab behaviour to excuse American behaviour, so I am writing posts to centre that discussion.
And, though it has not been brought up yet, neither am I excusing racism against Arabs, like the stuff Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza. I am completely against it. Two wrongs do not make a right. Not even three wrongs.
@ Taj, Churchs, etc:
This post is part of a series:
Arab racism against blacks
American racism against blacks
Arab slavery
American slavery
Arab slave trade
American slave trade
@ bingregory
I saw some pictures of Condoleezza and a lovestruck Ghadaffi but I thought they were too flip for this post. I chose that picture because the Arabic writing and the monkey make it clear that there is Arab racism against blacks.
I remember reading about theories behind the origins of European racism towards blacks. The more popular theory from historians is that anti-black European racism was developed as a means to justify slavery, the less popular alternative to that theory is that Europeans simply adopted Arab perceptions of blacks as their own.
I more inclined to accept the more popular former theory; however, I do think the alternative is pretty interesting.
Anti-Black Arab prejudice is not a central theme in my life, so it’s hard to care much about what some of them think about me or any other person of color.
Hey Abagond,
I’m myself an arab north african muslim woman, look like white midle eastern, and in my culture it is true they do prefer whites , in Marriage for example and say bizare things about blacks although in my country you get all colours from very white to very black and All (or almost all) muslims! , Islam fighted this behaviour and called it :ignorance (: Jahiliya). there is an authentic Hadeeth ( Saying of the prophet) where two compagnons of the prophet had an argument and one of them said to the other ( Bilal : one of the very first muslims and that happened to be black) you son of the Black woman, to insult him, so Bilal got angry and went to complain to the prophet peace be upon him, So Mohammed the prophet got angry with Abu Tharr and said : You are a man with some Jahiliya. ( Jahilya being the period of ignorance before islam came) , an other thing is when Islam first came it was not accepted in Mecca KSA and the first muslims had to travel to ask for support from the Habasha( in Somelia now) King who was Black christian, and he offered his help and support. there is also that arab muslim woman whose husband had passed away , and after her waiting period had to pretendants from pure arab decent, she didn’t know who to marry so she went to the prophet peace be upon him to ask who is the best of them , ( both are from the compagions of the prophet) He said about one that he is way too stingy, and about the other he beats his wifes, and he told her to marry another who was a black and used to be a slave ( no honorable race for an arab!) she did and was happy with that. Islam tought me that we are all equal the only advantage we can have in front of our lord is our faith and piety.as the prophet said in another authentic saying that Allah doesn’t look at our pictures or our bodies but to our hearts.
what you say about quran that it distinguishes between people’s colours and consider white as good and black as not, is not for this life but for the hereafter and white in general means light and black is for darkness. It’s like for another world not meaning the colour of people today.
Now for what you say about arabs and their culture (that is not very islamic) it is true there is racism even against other muslims!
So please to distinguish between what the religion says and what people do.
Abagond,
Tha arabic writing next to Condolesa Caricature is : Rice talks about the birth of a new middle east.
Some arabs hate Condolesa not because she is black but because of politics you should also find some Bush caricatures. Not justifying but trying to explain.
Slavery still exists Abagond in Saudi Arabia
http://undertheabaya.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/saudi-arabia-domestic-help-maid-or-slave/
Some blacks dealt with the racism head on.
Al-Jahiz (in Arabic الجاحظ) (real name Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Kinani al-Fuqaimi al-Basri) an Afro-Arab and the grandson of a Zanj (Bantu) slave was born in Basra, c. 781 – December 868 or January 869.
wrote a book entitled Risalat mufakharat al-Sudan ‘ala al-bidan (“Treatise on the Superiority of Blacks over Whites”), in which he stated that Blacks:
“…have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and have governed them. We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish King of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but you, White people, have never conquered our country. Our people, the Zenghs (Negroes) revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes and making Oballah a bath of blood
“…Blacks are physically stronger than no matter what other people. A single one of them can lift stones of greater weight and carry burdens such as several Whites could not lift nor carry between them. [...] They are brave, strong, and generous as witness their nobility and general lack of wickedness…”
Al-Jahiz was also a fantastic Islamic zoologist and is believed to have written about the theory of evolution long before Darwin.
oh and don’t forget the mixing that went on between Arab and Africans , especially in north Africa, that’s why Moroccans look the way they do…like Malaika zarra…people forget in Arab slavery when an Arab man had an African concubine, the children would be born and emancipated because it’s against Islam to enslave your children, so Arab slavery in the 18th century was still DIFFERENT from European Chattle slavery…even though many “white Arabs,” or “lighter skinned Arabs,” held prejudice too…
but people forget Arab isn’t a race, it’s an ethnicity there are white Arabs, brown Arabs, black Arabs etc…
when i took Arabic in college, my professor was Lebanese, but i thought she was white because she looked completely white, but she would be considered a person of color in the US, even though her skin was white.
My arabic never progressed to the level that it could have been had I not stopped taking it, but i still remember some. In that cartoon, the top quote says something to the effect of “Rice talks about the birth of a new middle east?”
I am not sure what the bottom says, I can only gather the pronunciation, I know the first word is “rice,” but what is Zaiman Nakam
this makes me miss studying Arabic, that is most definitely a racist cartoon though, just looking at the picture you can see that, but I don’t understand the bottom sentence there
I had a fling with this guy in college he was of Northern Sudanese descent, but grew up in Saudi Arabia and moved to the US I think in Middle School…he was nice, but we had an incident at one point…not gonna go there.
he said in Saudi Arabia, they’re really strict about who can call themselves Saudi Arabian and if your father isn’t Saudi, then you can never be considered Saudi, even if your mother is Saudi and your father is something else like Nigerian, then you’re not Saudi you’re not even Arab.
his mother I think was Southern Sudanese, from the South and his father Northern Sudanese.
kola boof talks a lot about racism of Arabs against Blacks, but I personally haven’t experienced it, although I know it is most certainly a real issue…if I spent significant time in an Arab country, I’d probably experience it. I know in the US Arabs lose their white card and are lumped in with POC, so I think some probably may change their perception of race because they’re put in a different racial box in the US than they may have been at home.
@Peanut
Actually, the experience of Arabs in the US can be very specific to the person, given that all Arabs, including North Africans, are officially considered “Caucasian” on the US census. In other words, if you can pass, you do. If you can’t pass, you have to deal with your identity as Americans conceive of it.
Ex – If you’re Arab and Christian, and your name does not “sound” recognizably Arab (i.e., for example you may be Lebanese and/or Francophone), it is more likely your choice to bring up your Arab origin – or not. Same goes for Arabs of more “African” features – some of whom struggle to be seen as “Arab” in the US, to distinguish themselves from blacks.
I know that I’ve personally called out a guy (Lebanese) in the US, based on familiarity with family names, etc. of Lebanon (I lived there for a little while). Fascinating result: he blushed to the roots of his hair, and was *SO* clearly embarrassed beyond words…this was before I even asked him if he spoke any Arabic. I’d say there is clearly strong Arab awareness of the benefits of white identification stateside…and if you CAN get away with it, you might well try to.
Very interesting. I honestly didn’t know about the racism within the Arab world.
Just on the basic level, I find it a bit funny that anyone would try to explain that some form of slavery is better than another.
The fact is that a slave is not a free individual. He has no say so of anykind of his life. Yes, he may have influence, he may survive and even become rich and powerful, but in relation to his/hers owner, he/she is just a propety. Some of the most powerful men in Rome were slaves of the emperor but at the very second the emperor, for what ever reason, decided that this slave had to go or sold him off, that was it.
So trying to explain that arab slavery or african slavery was not that bad is like trying to explain that lethal injection is very nice experience compared to strangulation or drowning, not to mention the burning on the stake. Any form of slavery is not good.
Not a single form of slavery is good, better or nicer. And I don’t care how it is seen inside what culture or context. Slavery is wrong, period. I do not care how it was percieved, explained, understud or was it according to any religion or philosophy. Slavery is wrong. Period. And to me it makes no difference is the slave trader white, brown, black, yellow or pink, green or purple, it is still slave trade.
Is that supposed to be Condoleeza Rice? I am not a fan of Rice. With that being said, That is a very offensive cartoon.
@ Keema good point. I did know of ONE girl of Arab descent and she kept calling herself “white,” because of her skin, but the white girls ( of european descent) let her know REAL quick that she wasn’t “white,” but Arab…so to them she wasn’t white at all
For the record – there have been growing reports of racism in the Arab world. Places like Saudi, Lebanon, and the UAE, have all had significant issues of maltreatment and discrimination against foreign workers from Indonesia, the Phillipines, Sri Lanka and India. Ranging from exploitation, to not permitting Asian workers onto public beaches, and even murder, human rights groups have started to take notice of increasing reports of abuses.
It is really only someone who hasn’t experienced Arab racism and oppression firsthand that would claim that Arabs are less prejudiced that Western whites. To me they are both bad, and maybe Arabs moreso because no one outside parts of Africa seems to take their colonialism and imperialism seriously. More than half of the North Africans who claim to be Arab today will be surprised to find out that they are fully indigenous African. Skin colour is not a precursor to being African,many blonde haired, blue eyed North Africans are purely Amazigh. I find it so ridiculous that we’re talking about Black people in North Africa as if they are not indigenous too. Amazigh skin tones range from the lightest white to the darkest Black and this doesn’t necessarily mean that they have non African blood because they are not that many Arabs in North Africa outside of countries like Egypt to begin with.
I wouldn’t be much surprised if Europeans got their racist ideas of Black people from Arabs. In fact they most likely did considering the popularity of Arab scholars and philosophy in European history, though this tends to be hidden today.
Personally the only North Africans I’ve met who claim to be Arab tend to be from Libya and Egypt, I don’t find this surprising they most likely are. I’ve never met a Moroccan or Sudanese who said they were Arab even when they spoke Arabic, again people from these countries most likely are not Arab and only a few would have Arab ancestry realisticly. And having travelled to the Middle East, I can say that I’ve experienced and witnessed more overt anti Black racism there than when I was in Europe. I won’t even start on the strong prejudice against Indian and South Asian people there. That shit wore me down in a way that I’ve never experienced elsewhere. Even though I really enjoyed Dubai at least, I hated every other destination.
I think a lot of us need to completely rethink the way we approach Arab racism, we need to stop thinking they are somehow “better”. We also need to change how we talk about North Africa, I suggest you read works by Amazigh activists.
Sorry for the essay but I have a lot to say about Arab racism. And I won’t start about how the whole thing about it being forbidden to enslave other Muslims didn’t really work. Do you really think the majority of slaves in Mauritania, Sudan or Saudi Arabia aren’t Muslim? Or that they were not Muslim before they were enslaved? Arabs have been enslaving Muslims despite religious law for a long time.
Aba
Africans are the most hated, envied and feared group on the planet. This is not shocking to me at all as ALL nations that are “white identified” hate us. This includes the Asians (Indians) as well. My caramel skin was seen as the source much pain to an Arab, Filipino and Puerto Rican co-worker as she/ he was darker than me with wider noses and fuller lips and “kinky” hair. Since the Eurocentric haze has influenced all nations, I fully expect hatred from all Coloureds. Especially those with a direct African bloodline.
Dr. Amos and Rev. Barashango speak of this extensively as dark skin is seen as the bottom of the human and socio-economic scale. Even though Brown vs. Brown is indeed a losing game, this lesson must teach Blacks that:
1. We have NO allies on this planet.
2. Even our “cousins”, the Latinos and Red-Men, can be used against us.
3. We need to put aside our petty differences and band together NOW.
4. The European will use the different Coloured nations as a weapon to destroy us.
One of the hardest things I’ve had to learn in my life is that I am a pariah. This of course made me stronger than ever as I gained knowledge of the word “Colonialism.” Black people need to stop wanting to befriend everyone on the planet and work on our own dysfunction. We need to put 500 years of light vs. dark, “pretty” hair vs. “ugly” hair , big nose vs. little nose aside and see the harsh truth before our eyes.
No one likes us.
No one is on our side.
And if given an opportunity, they’ll destroy us just the same.
They are the worse. I think the current generation of mixed race individuals hates having to be associated with anything black.
@ Jared
The mulatto/ mestizo has been/ is being used as a “buffer” class to keep their master’s foot on the necks of Africa. Even though I am Creole myself, I can separate myself emotionally from this tool and see the truth that stands before me. There is nothing more painful and shocking to the European than the realization that the mixed race he spawned and tried to brainwash has allegiance with Africa. In fact, they were killed first for their “treason.”
Great Post!!
@ diaryofanegress ; well said.
@Abagond
You missed the opportunity to talk about the global racial hierarchy, which places lighter skin at the top, and darker skin at the bottom. While Arabs are racist against blacks, they are not as racist against whites, because whites are in charge. I have seen the same thing in Asia. In China, random strangers would often approach my white French friends just to say “Hello” to them in English while none of the Chinese ever said a word to blacks. It’s disgusting how so many people of color kiss up to whites. For example, the white standard of beauty is rampant in Asia, as evidenced by advertisements and fashion magazines which place whites on a pedestal.
The model minority stereotype gives Asian-Americans “honorary white” status which allows them to think they’re better than blacks and equal to whites, yet whites still look down on Asian-Americans. At the same time, blacks end up resenting Asian-Americans for achieving higher status so they vent their frustrations on them, like they did when they attacked Asian-American businesses in the Rodney King riots. Blacks thought Asian-Americans were in cahoots with whites. It’s much easier to pick on someone your own size, after all. Whites have too much power for blacks to target them, the real oppressors.
Basically, Asian-Americans look down on blacks because they benefit from second-class citizenship while blacks resent them because they get third-class citizenship. All the while, whites sit back and relax, watching the subjugated groups tear each other up while they cash in on their first-class citizenship. The key is “Divide and Rule”. For example, India’s Hindus and Muslims fighting each other made the British very happy, and Churchill hoped that their fights were very bloody.
Look up “racial triangulation” and “lateral racism”, which the establishment uses to divide minorities and keep whites in power. I sadly predict that when minorities outnumber whites in America, nothing will change as minorities will be too divided. This is already true in California, where whites are only 40%. 100% of the governors have been straight white men because whites still hold the power.
@ sam, you say:
Throughout history in different parts of the globe there have been the less well off people, the conquered nations, the prisoners captured during wars, the kidnapped, vulnerable women and children, and so on. It was called, e.g.:
serfdom,
bride-buying,
debt bondage,
peonage,
sweatshops,
wage slavery,
penal labour,
panyarring,
blackbirding — and more.
What are you really saying here, sam, because none of the above is a bed of roses for the ones these practices were inflicted on, who suffered … none of it is the right way to treat other human beings. I’m with you on that!
But, is it all sameness and doesn’t matter? As I’ve said before, is traditional marriage for a poor woman perceived in the same way as being kidnapped, transported and then worked to death in a few months down a Bolivian silver mine?
How many of us have really been free? And what of our ancestors? How many of our working lives FEEL like slavery? Even top management are often just employees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panyarring
@bulanik:
Ok, let me try to clarify. There are endless forms of oppression, economical and political etc. There is unequalness in societies all around, different forms of class systems etc. BUT I meant those forms which are slavery, that is: when someone is a propety and merchandise of another.
When a humanbeing is bought or sold under any circumstances and this condition is accepted as a normal practise and/or cultural phenomena, it is slavery. To me it does not matter how we dress it up, how much variety there is in different forms of slavery in different times and cultures. The fundamental thing is that slave has no rights what so ever. Period.
He/she may be treated well, he/she may be educated and living well but only, ONLY if the owner sees that important. If the owner of a slave deiceds that it is better to keep the slave under the cellar, that is the way it is going to be. A slave has no say so about anything of his/her life.
He/she may hope, may ask, but has no power over his/her destiny because, in the end, he/she is just an household object, just like a spoon or kettle, vacuum cleaner or car. That is he/she has only the value of an object under the slavery. Once that value has gone, he/she has no value. Period.
A slave may be important as a driver or cleaner, or farm worker or factory worker, or an artist or poet or what ever. BUT his/her value is only as an object. He/she has no human value. A slave is not a humanbeing. A slave is an object, a propety, something to be used and owned, sold and bought. That is all.
And keeping that mind I find it very strange that anyone would try to explain that this form of slavery is much more humane than this one over here. The nazis had people working to their deaths at secret military factories, they died by thousands, and they had no other value. That was slavery.
In USSR millions perished in the prison camps, many working in Siberia in abysmal conditions and by supplies which were less than needed to sustain life. When they dug the canal from the White Sea to south, 38 000 finns died. Perhaps 250 000 is estimated to have died during the construction of the Stalins Channel. When people died in masses like that they were litterally considered as propety of the state, slaves that is. Thousands of the dead, their bones and remains were thrown into cement mixers and litterally used in the concrete of the walls and gatehouses etc, of the channel. Because they had value only as propety to the end.
For me when someone says that this slavery is better than this because in this slavery the slaves are treated better, it is litterally like someone would say that an execution by lethal injection is better than by guilliotine. But they are the same in the end.
@ sam
I agree with everything you’re saying. I believe most of us know where you’re coming from. The simple fact, though, is that for many actions, there is no moral equivalence. For example, there is little argument about the millions of Germans expelled from Eastern Europe after World War Two as opposed to the continued discussions in public schools today about the expulsions of Jews from Germany. This is because the plight of the Jews was completely unjust while the plight of the Germans was wrought upon themselves by Germany, which represented them and worked to their benefit. Of course, a power dynamic was at work and in that case, what went around came around.
This is by no means an excuse for any of the wrongdoings. A murderer of one person doesn’t get a lighter sentence because he can point his finger at a murderer of a hundred people. I think the point of differentiating the various forms of slavery is to establish a rank of right and wrong or to draw a line somewhere. After all, you would not rank a child who breaks another child’s toy as just as terrible a person as an arsonist who burns down another person’s house by sending both to jail. One could argue that property crime is crime all the same. So there is no need to differentiate. That both are bad. Clearly, that is insufficient so when we rank the evils of multiple forms of slavery, we mean to say that one is worse than the other, rather than that one is better than the other. Perhaps the wording was wrong.
@ sam
Perhaps I am mistaken, sam, but I think you mean chattel slavery, humans as fleshly commodities, and forced labour in penal colonies, when an individual is forced to work against their will, under threat of violence or other punishment, with restrictions on their freedom.
Yes, I agree with you that people existing under such conditions have no human rights equally. Slave master or guard could dispose of them in equal measure. Thus, no difference.
But difference types of slavery and bondage are not equivalent.
Debt slaves, for instance, are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations. Is this the same thing as chattel and penal slavery? What is the cause here? Poverty!
To be an indentured labourer means you’re free but tied to your debt, probably for most of your life — the right to someone’s labour is not the not the same as seeing them as a piece of property, although that right to their labour may change hands — the servant and the labour are separate.
Yet the cause of indentureship is always poverty!
In the Middle Ages, serfs were slaves too. They only owned their bellies. Yet, the landlord could not dispossess his serfs without legal cause and was supposed to protect them from the actions of robbers or other lords; he was expected to support them by charity in times of famine, enforceable through the manorial court. A person became a serf usually through — you guessed it — poverty.
What about work houses? Or debtors’ prisons? Purpose built for the crime of poverty…because to be poor is an affliction.
The poor have long been a problem.
Leave them to perish? Or to charity? Or set up a Welfare State? Were some forms of slavery a form of Welfare State? To this day, the world’s majority work to live. Hustle to survive. The streets are only a few pay cheques away, etc.
But sam, what I am really saying here is that through history and in probably most civilizations, people — most people — were generally poor. Or on the losing side. Or, at the mercy of the higher-ups. What they had, all that they had, was their bodies and the services their bodies provided, in exchange for food, shelter, etc.
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that we know of today is built on precisely that: TRADE, the money from which enabled early corporations, and the template by which work under later-capitalism is fashioned. Corporations are living entities created for accruing profit. This is their appetite, because they are an artificial person, and what they eat are human life-force and the planet the humans and animals walk on (the cattle and chattel). AFAIK, the corporation, and the veil of incorporation, will allow, has allowed, slavery in pursuit of profit, hasn’t it, without the responsibility or accountability of those behind the veil that benefit.
I don’t believe that this is what Adam Smith (the father of Economics) had in mind when he wrote the “The Wealth of Nations”.
However, what he did say was: Labour is Property. To paraphrase: Because that property (one’s productivity) is one’s own, to which one has a perfect right, and because productivity is exchangeable, one should be free to exchange this commodity, and others should be free to employ it. Thus: one may sell one’s labour productivity without thereby selling oneself into serfdom. If one is not paid for one’s productivity, one’s property rights will be violated. Worse, because one’s productivity is an outcome of one’s own labour, if it is not recognized as an exchangeable commodity, one thereby will be treated as a slave.
Basically, slaves were not free to exchange their labour, but were exchanged AS labour. But the fact is, when Adam Smith argued that free labour is usually more productive than slave labour, he was just calculating how to get the best return from an investment!
What Adam Smith did not foresee was that the commercial would gain control over the civic, that the capitalism would cannibalize itself and become a tradition of treating people and the planet as property, and that all that degradation of ENSLAVEMENT would be absolutely normalized, globalized profit-acquisition.
Isn’t that where we are?
@bulanik:
I get partly what you are saying but I am not sure you get what I am saying. What I mean is slavery in any form, be that feudal or any other form.
Poverty is a huge problem, has always been and will be untill societies stop doing what they are doing now: playing the elites game. Welfare state is the best there ever has been and yet, look what those rich and powerful are doing right now across Europe. They are breaking it down while stealing the billions which should have been used to uphold that, and that money is yours and m,ine, tax euros, not theirs.
I did not include feudal slavery in my previous answer because to me that is given. It is simply slavery. But are you implying that only the commercial slavery was or is worse than other forms?
I do not know what you are saying completely. Are suggesting that some forms of slavery are indeed better than others? I stand by my words. No slavery is better than the other. Period. It may look and feel nicer, but it is still slavery. Just like lethal injection looks nicer than hanging or beheading.
^to briefly interject:
the way I interpret what Bulanik and Peanut were pointing out is that different systems of slavery have had differing technical avenues to gain freedom. an indentured servant knew his servitude would finish in X years; a virginia slave was done at death (most of the time). by comparison one might say it is marginally preferable to be an indentured servant.
side note:
it’s an interesting discussion but shouldn’t it move to another thread? Abagond, is this discussion ok here?
The Koran sees different skin colours as a good thing.
It does, but not for the reason you may be thinking. In our modern multicultural loving culture diversity is seen as being an end in itself. The Quran is making a somewhat different point. Throughout the Quran God’s omnipotence is illustrated through the diversity of creation. That this is a God that can do everything by creating several species of birds and animals. From a literary perspective, the diversity of creation is actually a frequently occurring motif in the Quran and this is also extended to the creation of man. That the diversity of tribes and nations is a sign of God’s omnipotence.
Also the Arabs during Muhammad’s time did not have any notion of racial distinction. Lewis makes that quite clear too. Lewis believes that they eventually became racist when they saw that the technological and social development of the ‘lighter skinned people’ (Persians/Romans) greatly overshadowed the accomplishments of the ‘darker skinned people.’
Bear in mind that during Muhammad’s own lifetime the African realms (notably Abyssinia) were considerably ahead of the primitive Arabs on a civilizational scale. It just so happened that when the Arabs absorbed other civilizations (notably the Persians) during their conquest phase, they established the Islamic civilization which was arguably the most accomplished of all civilizations during its time.It is about now that the Africans appear a lot less advanced than they did 200 years ago during Muhammad’s lifetime.
Similarly, the Europeans were also convinced of their own superiority post Renaissance as their cultures progressed at a phenomenal rate, giving them the impression that other cultures were static since they could not keep up. What I’m trying to say is that Whites are not inherently racist, but their civilization went through a similar transition as that of the Muslim Arabs.
Dont you get it , Sam ? The majority of black African slaves taken by the Arabs , were girls for their harems…Being taken as a sex slave has more advantages , you may even get pregnant and can then be free…and there could be a chance you would have orgasms so all the work might have some pleasure
If you were male taken by the Arabs, you might get your genitals cut off, but, not to worry , once you are in the harem, you could possibly weild influence
The amount of people who died on the march is insignificant to this argument , nor the loss of the family left behind. They should not greive as hard as if their relative is taken in the Atlantic slave trade, their family member is only going to be a sex slave or maybe have their genitals cut off in the Arab slave trade
You have to understand these differances
I don’t believe that their wasn’t much of anyone left to grieve for those who were taken to the new world.
I have to agree with Sam on this one, besides no rising through the ranks to wield power could probably never make up for not being able to make love to a woman any more.
While I do not have much to share on this thread, it is very nice to hear from you b.r.
@ cosmi/sam
you both made good points, but I HOPE you weren’t implying based off of my comments that I believe Arab racism doesn’t exist or that arab slavery was “okay.” Because i never said that, I simply pointed out that Arab slavery was DIFFERENT from the Atlantic slave trade and IT WAS in many ways, that’s not to say it was OKAY to enslave Black people or anyone for that matter…but they did do certain things differently that’s obvious. But who the hell wants to be a slave at the end of the day…
I also said that I have never experienced any discrimination from Arabs IN THE UNITED STATES for being Black…I did not say it didn’t happen abroad I said I’m sure that it happens abroad and I know that it does. I would consider some people in Morocco to be Afro-Arab, not Caucasian, SOME of the people in Sudan I would say are Afro-Arab, some Black Africans, but I know there’s been a lot of conflict over that distinction…to me Afro-Arab is someone who is from an Arabic speaking region who is of mixed or predominately African-descent or has some ties to Arab culture.
Honestly, I would consider Kola Boof to be Afro-Arab too, that’s not to say she isn’t Black, but she’s part Arab and speaks Arabic
when i go to Morocco and Senegal, I’ll see how things are. I really can only go off of my personal experience and I know Kola Boof writes about Arab racism a lot and I know it exist…she herself has written about how SOME Brown skinned “Black or Afro-arabs,” have used their Arab-heritage to feel superior to some Black or dark-skinned Brown people, so I know that racism and colorism happens in Arab culture…
if you weren’t directing your comments at me, then I am just speaking generally, but I just wanted to clarify I am not saying Arab racism doesn’t matter or doesn’t exist and I’m not saying their form of slavery was BETTER OR OKAY.
sam,
I actually don’t think the feudal system is the same as the Atlantic slave trade nor is it the same as the Arab slave trade…that’s the same argument that white people use all the time when they want to make chattel slavery in the US seem less brutal than it was…sorry but having to work for 7-10 years of your life to pay off a debt isn’t the same as being a slave for LIFE or being forced into sexual slavery like in the Arab slave trade…not saying feudal system was fair or just, but at least those people had a chance to be free at some point…not like when your skin color automatically marks you not only for enslavement but discrimination for generations to come…
I agree that Arab slavery was brutal, Atlantic slave trade was brutal, but temporary servitude like in ancient Rome and parts of Europe, that’s on a different level…sorry.
but i respect ur opinion
@ Legion,
well-put…if you had to choose between one of the other, most people would probably choose being an indentured servant to being chattel slaves. i am not saying indentured servitude was okay or didn’t matter, but I think it’s a bit unfair to say it’s THE SAME as Arab or Atlantic slavery
@ Peanut. I’ve been thinking about this for a day or 2.
When I read your original comments you were perfectly clear.
I don’t understand how anyone could imagine that just because a black person or south-Asian person hasn’t had the same experience of anti-black racism from Arabs doesn’t mean that Arab racism doesn’t exist or that Arab slavery was somehow all right. The type of slavery practiced by Arabs was also different, but it’s as if it’s not permitted to say so, and in which way, because if details and facts are given explaining that — then that’s interpreted as it was “just fine” to enslave black people… Wow.
Sometimes I really wonder whether it’s worth passing on information that fills in gaps or whatever because some people want to reject it and ignore it or play it down because it’s just damn inconvenient to their view of the world.
@ sam
I’m not sure that you are getting what I’m trying to say.
But at the same time, maybe I am not yet getting you, too.
But let’s keep trying
You say this:
Do mean that slavery is slavery but inequality only produces oppression?
Let me be corrected if I am wrong.
If that IS what you mean, then your definition of what slavery is, is narrower than mine because I believe there’s been a lot of slavery around but it’s been hidden because it goes by other names.
It doesn’t get recognized for what it is. And, if it is mentioned it is relegated to “less than”.
In fact, to me, what YOU appear to be saying is that some suffering is worse than others depending on whether it falls inside a model that has been traditionally recognized what is bad and what is worse.
Arab and Trans-Atlantic slavery seems gets top billing in that scheme. And when I say that I am NOT saying that those systems weren’t the genocidal abominations that they were.
There are different examples, but let’s take the example of marriage practices for now, since Arabs taking women and girls as sex slaves and castrating males has been mentioned in previous comments. I’ve mentioned marriage in the context of slavery before and above, but I think it just gets missed again and again because it’s not seen as that bad.
The castration and genital mutilation of females is a practice which is 1000s of years old across numerous cultures, and no doubt many, many of the African females abducted by the Arab slavers already had their genitalia cut off by the time they were captured and sold…so I’m not sure that the remark made earlier about an orgasm for the all that work goes anywhere because these same women might have been nicely married off if they hadn’t been abducted and been their husbands sex slave instead…
Why would the female children and women already be genital-less anyway?
Would such females be marriageable if they did have their genitals intact?
How could a female be sold into marriage if she were not ‘clean’ and honourable? Traditional practices in traditional societies where polygyny, payment of bride-price and child-brides were or are the norm, all point to females as assets belonging to men.
In these settings, from birth, girls had been groomed and trained for marriage-servitude. The females in the family were/are a source of wealth.
The do not have full human status.
The males grow up knowing that their sisters have no rights to their fathers’ property, and the females grow up knowing that they ARE property.
They grow up knowing their value is determined by what is between their legs. THIS.
That their virginity must be intact at the time of marriage. That their sexual desire is appropriately suppressed and this is all for the good of their social integration, religious reasons and to support the various myths of culture.
Incidentally, I remember talking to someone who had worked for a time in an anti-sex-trafficking unit who told me that the men who forced these women into prostitution simply felt ENTITLED. Their attitude was:
they are our women, we do with them what we want.
And so it is in a traditional marriage, in a traditional culture.
Could a husband rape his wife? But she’s free, isn’t she? In some instances I have heard that after a girl has had her genitals cut off, a wooden penis is inserted into a her body to the size of her future husband penis, to prepare her for her “role”.
According to one account, a wedding night in Somalia may proceed in such a way:
First the wife is beaten with a leather whip by her husband, and then he uses a dagger to open her:
“According to tradition, the husband should have prolonged and repeated intercourse with her during eight days. This “work” is in order to “make” an opening by preventing the scar from closing again. During these eight days, the woman remains lying down and moves as little as possible in order to keep the wound open. The morning after the wedding night, the husband puts his bloody dagger on his shoulder and makes the rounds in order to obtain general admiration.”
(Jacques Lantier in “La Cite Magique”)
I think it goes without saying that future marital life kind of continues how it starts off.
Sharina, thanks for your comment to me…and, ok, I admit, Im being sarcastic , yes, Jared, I actualy agree with Sam, and, at the same time, agree with anyone that the Atlantic slave trade was more brutal than the Arab slave trade….
Peanut, I would also never try to convince you that chattel slavery was better than Arab slavery, I just have doubts that , in the case of the slaves from sub Sahara black Africa, it went down exactly like how you describe for the Arab slave trade, the castration aspect alone screaming out.
The absolute most frustrating thing about discussing the Atlantic slave trade versus the Arab slave trade , is, in the process of not giving white Americans the opening to say “everybody does it” or, from amunition to the “Islamaphobes”, who gets shafted is the “sub Sahara black Africans” , who were the target of both these horrific slave trades. No matter what the outcome for the over 10 million slaves in the Arab slave trade, no matter how differant, there were still 10 million families affected very deeply by their loss…there was a precious recource taken out of black Africa…
And, as usual, what doesnt even get addressed and never will be in this type of discusion is, the total loss of culture and the ability to practice that culture. American slave owners totaly forbade slaves from practicing their culture, in Brazil, it was only because sometimes there were such large numbers of slaves versus colonisers, some Afro Brazilian culture was allowed to be expressed, but, in Candomble, the Afro Brazilian expresion of root religious Afro expresion, the Orixais are hidden behind Catholic saints, like voodoo or Santera.
There is no way Islam allows pure sub Sahara black African culture to be practiced. The dances alone would offend . Where some syncopated grooves seep through, the dance concepts are surpressed , buried and dissmissed.
Its very hard for me to imagine what it would be like to have my culture taken away, to not be permitted to practice the culture I love.
We can debate all we want about the Arab slave trade versus the Atlantic, but, for the sub Sahara black African slave who is taken into slavery, losing the ability to practice one’s culture , even if one slavery is less brutal than the other, and, the loss for the families left behind, is an equal suffering in both kinds of slavery.
This is my last comment on this thread…I jumped in on a couple of threads recently, but, I would like to retreat back to listening mode. On the sub Sahara thread, im just repeating myself….Ive been over it 3 or 4 times on this blog…If bringing in a huge amount of youtubes that prove without a doubt that sub Sahara black Africa is tied together by a tremendous huge body of knowledge with similar concepts that are unique to them and is a gift to the world , doesnt make an impresion , because that isnt intellectual words, that is serious for real proof , then I do need to be listening and not repeating
How does the male castration aspect SCREAM out, but Female Genital Mutilation and child-bride slavery does not? In present times, between 100-140 million girls and women around the world have undergone female genital mutilation, 92 million of them in Africa.
But that is pure culture, so it’s okay, obviously.
no one should be forced to have their vagina cut if they don’t want it, culture or not. you force someone to do something like that, that’s a violation period, put culture aside. i wouldn’t want my vagina cut against my will. so i agree with bulanik on that one.
i’m so glad i have my clit. it’s not something that i take for granted because at least i can give myself some pleasure if I choose, but when you can’t even get any pleasure that’s so wrong…some people don’t want a female to enjoy sex they just want them to be subservient sex objects.
in kola boof’s book, she talks about how she was infublated at a young age and had her father’s name written in arabic on her vulva, but her mother wouldn’t allow her clit. to be removed because she wanted her to be able to enjoy sex and so kola boof doesn’t consider herself “mutilated.” she sees her privates to be beautiful and she enjoys her sexuality even though according to tradition she wasn’t supposed to, so that’s a form of resistance to that custom in itself.
Bulanik , if this is a direct question to me, Ill be happy to respond, and then not comment unless someone has a direct question.
Who sais female genital mutilation shouldnt be disussed and condemned and more than male castration in Arab slavery?
It just doesnt cancel out male castration of black Africans in the Arab slave trade. What SCREAMS out, is in the context of how it is depicted that the black African in slavery in the Arab slave trade, goes through some kind of 20 year work program and then retires, a free man, or free woman if you have a baby…
If some black African men were castrated in the process , that certainly doesnt play out as a fuedal experiance of serving out some work time…that certainly does SCREAM out and , female mutilation doesnt have anything to do with it. That is another story and I dont really see what that has to do with it.
@ BR castration is terrible too i think that it’s HORRIBLE the way they castrated Black men and then had them guard their harems where often African women were slaves…THAT IS SICK!!
but that doesn’t erase the fact that sexism was present in both Arab societies and African societies.
so i guess that i agree with what you wrote BR i guess we’re both in agreement they’re both bad situations, even though the female vaginal cutting is more widespread and takes place in both arab and african cultures even today
BR, no, I was answering sam’s question. I don’t know if you read the conversation between us, but I wanted to be clear about his one definition of slavery. In my view, slavery is brutal and lifelong and goes on generation after generation, not only through race, but through gender. Slavery is also hidden from view, and called different names to keep the social order.
But then, you’ve mentioned Arabs castrating sub- Saharan Africans.
You also mentioned Arabs making sex slaves out of sub Saharan Africans too, so it’s only natural that I’d allude to it since YOU brought in:
1. the subject of genitals mutilation being part of the discussion about slavery, and later,
2. the subject of pure African culture.
Now, where did I say FGM shouldn’t be discussed?
I was very specific in context!
How does my comment CANCELS out male castration by Arabs?
It does not.
You mentioned sex slavery and male castration in the context of slavery.
I mentioned sex slavery and female castration in the context of marriage-servitude — which is slavery, that’s naturally why it is called bride-price.
I see a parallel in the context of my discussion with sam, as not all slavery is recognized for what it is. In the cultures I mention, the wife is a slave, from birth to death, and her price has ABSOLUTELY everything to do with her clitoris, labia (or lack thereof), and her vagina (and its closure). Her daughter and grand-daughters and their daughters in turn will be slaves to their menfolk, and so on. They will submit, to rape, to beatings, to servitude to castration.
It’d insensitive if you cannot the parallel that screams out for recognition.
it’s an issue that a lot of people are dismissive of because it’s “their culture”, what they really mean it’s only “their women”. And this makes it okay, or, worse still, irrelevant because they just can’t see what that has got to do with it. With anything.
Here again is what I said about this practice:
“.. no doubt many, many of the African females abducted by the Arab slavers already had their genitalia cut off by the time they were captured and sold…so I’m not sure that the remark made earlier about an orgasm for the all that work goes anywhere because these same women might have been nicely married off if they hadn’t been abducted and been their husbands sex slave instead…
Why would the female children and women already be genital-less anyway?
Would such females be marriageable if they did have their genitals intact?
How could a female be sold into marriage if she were not ‘clean’ and honourable? Traditional practices in traditional societies where polygyny, payment of bride-price and child-brides were or are the norm, all point to females as assets belonging to men.
In these settings, from birth, girls had been groomed and trained for marriage-servitude. The females in the family were/are a source of wealth.
The do not have full human status.
The males grow up knowing that their sisters have no rights to their fathers’ property, and the females grow up knowing that they ARE property.
They grow up knowing their value is determined by what is between their legs. THIS.
That their virginity must be intact at the time of marriage. That their sexual desire is appropriately suppressed and this is all for the good of their social integration, religious reasons and to support the various myths of culture.
…. Their attitude was:
they are our women, we do with them what we want.
And so it is in a traditional marriage, in a traditional culture.
Could a husband rape his wife? But she’s free, isn’t she? In some instances I have heard that after a girl has had her genitals cut off, a wooden penis is inserted into a her body to the size of her future husband penis, to prepare her for her “role”.”
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/arab-racism-against-blacks/#comment-157573
typo correction: I meant to say:
It’d be insensitive if you cannot see the parallel that screams out for recognition.
I deleted some off-topic comments by Peanut, Bulanik and King.
Peanut, please dont think Im trying to out point you or be right.Im in full agreement with you that the Atlantic slave trade was the most brutal of all . But, it seems certain perceptions of the Arab slave trade are being implied to be something that they arnt. Like some effort to diminish the brutality.
Bulanik, seriously, the topic of clitoral mutilation is an enormous and important topic to discuss. It fully deserves a thread all its own to go into the ramifications. But, it doesnt negate the castration that was done on some young men by the Arab slave trade. And if we are going to look at the reality of the Arab slave trade in sub Sahara Africa, you have to look at that , also, and that isnt even the biggest brutality, its just one that needs to be looked at to understand.
My comment on orgasms was being sarcastic.Each woman on here can decide for themselves how they would feel about being kidnapped from your home and brought somewhere else, forced to abandon their culture and become sexual slaves…as well as how they feel about clitoral mutilation.
This is a thread about Arab racism, where there is no doubt that the Atlantic slave trade was more brutal, its this loss to the families whose members were taken away by both forms of slavery, the absolute destruction of their cultures, the act of deciding the sub Sahara black African and his culture are deemed worthy of being slaves, that they both have so much in common, worth examining exactly because of that and the racism involved to make that desician.
The truth is, the Arab slave trade is extremly murky and not clear. Even though the first centuries of the Atlantic slave trade are murky, there is much that is transparent after . We know where the slaves were brought, what happened after slavery, where the migrations went, how populations played out, how culture was influenced. The Arab slave trade has enourmous mystery about it.There is so so much we dont even know.And when we dig in even a little, the parralel brutalities are more the same than differant…and racism and destruction of culture, in both aspects plays a big part
Sorry for my backpeddling on my desire to comment less, I will do this when I dont have points to make about it , or answering points related to what I have said…I fully intend to comment less
BR, you say:
I hope that you are not suggesting that bringing in this aspect is irrelevant to the the discussion. If not, then, I don’t think you actually read what I said, or thought about it properly. It that’s not the case either, then what it sounds like, instead, is that you didn’t like that I brought in female genital mutilation as it relates to females in slavery because it took away from the impact you wanted to make about castration of males in slavery to illustrate Arab racism. The fact is having your genitals cut off AND being a sex-slave was sometimes, if not often the female story, whether as wife-slave to an African, or concubine-slave to an Arab.
It’s inconvenient, but castration/mutiltation of the female slave-wife sex-slave is way older, way, a way, way more widespread and way more current. It goes on and on, and by the MILLIONS.
The fact of the matter is since we were discussing what is slavery, and what it means to be a slave, this factor — destroying the physical sex of the slave — has EVERYTHING to do with it, whether it be inflicted by Arab or African, whether inflicted on female or male — it is what it is. It does not negate anything from no less horrific castration of males, and is no less relevant.
Bringing it in adds a very important dimension to our understanding of Arab racism and racist practices. Does it come as any surprise that Kola Boof herself mentioned that part of the attraction some Arab men have for African women is because they know many of the women are “cut”? After all, the practice of cutting off women’s genitals was also very widespread in Arabia, because Arabs (and Berbers) share a great deal of their culture with mainland Africans.
You then say:
You may appeal to the women by asking how they might feel about abduction — or even being castrated/mutilated! — but I am sure many girls and women might feel there is absolutely no difference about the following practices — none of which are isolated, obsolete or irrelevant to any discussion of this nature:
*Forced Marriage (e.g: practiced in east Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, etc.) underage girls bought and sold to pay of their father’s debt.
*Wife Inheritance (e.g: practiced in Kenya) — widowed women are passed onto other male relatives for compulsory sexual intercourse.
*Wife Seclusion (e.g: practiced in Hausaland, Nigeria) — wives cannot leave the compound, or speak to others, as they are property.
*Wife Abduction — this takes the form of kidnap followed by intensive rape to ensure impregnation.
That last one is quite well-known in Rwanda, Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as other countries. The most high profile case was conducted by the royal family of Swaziland. Some of these females are already and also castrated/genitally mutilated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping#Africa
Forced marriage in Malawi:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/international/africa/27malawi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
@Bulanik–
it’s inconvenient, but castration/mutiltation of the female slave-wife sex-slave is way older, way, a way, way more widespread and way more current. It goes on and on, and by the MILLIONS.
This mutilation of these millions of female bodies that’s going on NOW is breathtakingly horrendous.Slavery is almost too cute a word for this, yet how many males anywhere speak out about it? I know Alice Walker wrote a book about it.
I suspect that many men around the world don’t see this crime against humanity as being so bad because many men have always wanted to control women’s bodies so that they can have a steady supply of serviceable women. I read that this practice of removing the clitoris so that women don’t derive pleasure from sex also keeps a woman more faithful to a husband because she knows that another men can’t give her any more pleasure than her husband. So why go to another man. Also, a part of this “cutting” keeps the vagina tight and I’ll bet a lot of men jump for joy at the thought of that.
Yes, for some reason, sexism is never seen in the same urgent sense as is racism. I daresay, if the same arguments that many an outspoken gentleman on this very blog have espoused, were applied to their own male privilege there would be as much protest an equivocating as there is with White apologists like Randy.
As for the rationale for female genital mutilation, it sounds like a man’s theory, that focuses everything on orgasms. Yet in reality, most women (or even men) don’t leave their spouse because they aren’t able to achieve orgasms with them. They leave for emotional, support, compatibility, and relationship reasons.
@ Jorbia….you see it clearly for what it is. YOU SEE IT.
Earlier on, in reaction to the “scream out” about male castration, no amount of power wielding by a slave could ever make up for not being able to make love to a woman any more, yet mention female castration and genital mutilation, which is probably a million fold in comparison, and it’s kind of, well, thunderous silence.
No tragedy and loss of pleasure there…?
As I said above:
I could go on…
@ King
@ Jorbia
May I say that it is not just cutting off the outer clitoris. As you know it’s an organ somewhat larger below the skin. The castration is often more than a simple snip. It is more like a gouging . Often with a blunt implement. It can lead to all kinds of problems (including coma and death, I’ve heard). The nerves concentration is immense on the outer clitoris, but the clitoral body is also well endowed, as is the entire area of the vulva. Anyway. I can’t…
There’s plenty of info out there on it as it is.
WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0NuCMKaRpY)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-t93r4ejlE)
I think I’m going to throw up.
Seriously, seriously, disturbing to watch or even think about.
@King–
So on point when you said:
Yes, for some reason, sexism is never seen in the same urgent sense as is racism. I daresay, if the same arguments that many an outspoken gentleman on this very blog have espoused, were applied to their own male privilege there would be as much protest an equivocating as there is with White apologists like Randy.
There definitely would be lots of “equivocating” as you say. I always think about that as different Black men here go at White commenters.
As for the rationale for female genital mutilation, it sounds like a man’s theory, that focuses everything on orgasms.
Yes, it seems like lots of men just view women as climaxing sites.
Yet in reality, most women (or even men) don’t leave their spouse because they aren’t able to achieve orgasms with them. They leave for emotional, support, compatibility, and relationship reasons.
Lots of women would love for men to focus proportionally more on those other parts of a relationship but if you read what White and Black men in particular in this thing called the “manosphere” talk about online the most, it’s about how women won’t just shut up and service them sexually.
I don’t think that the discussion at that particular time was dealing with genital mutilation. I think that B.R. was discussing the Atlantic slave trade vs the Trans Saharan/Arab slavery and some of the roles that African men and women were sometimes used for.
Were African women and others mutilated in Arab harems ?. but for sure female genital mutilation is a horrific thing.
@ Bulanik–
I can’t even look!
Well, like I said, this is a subject that really deserves a thread on its own to do it justice.I dont think you can even begin to get at the depth and seriouness of it on a “Arab racism against blacks” because all the properties can happen to women of differant races also
And there is a parralel with “Arab racism against blacks” and “the Atlantic slave trade” and how racism against black people plays into that
@ Jared, I realize that you may not have seen the previous comments to contextualize what I actually said, and contextualize this as an African traditions, but the women and girls were probably already “done” by the time the Arabs caught up with them…
@ BR
Women of different races also?
Did you see my comment to you above in which I was quite specific about this in the context of slavery?
Or this:
Or these examples as a parellel and adjunct to Arab slave practices ancient and indigenous to Mainland Africa:
*Forced Marriage (e.g: practiced in east Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, etc.) underage girls bought and sold to pay of their father’s debt.
*Wife Inheritance (e.g: practiced in Kenya) — widowed women are passed onto other male relatives for compulsory sexual intercourse.
*Wife Seclusion (e.g: practiced in Hausaland, Nigeria) — wives cannot leave the compound, or speak to others, as they are property.
*Wife Abduction — this takes the form of kidnap followed by intensive rape to ensure impregnation.
That last one is quite well-known in Rwanda, Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as other countries. The most high profile case was conducted by the royal family of Swaziland. Some of these females are already and also castrated/genitally mutilated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping#Africa
Forced marriage in Malawi:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/international/africa/27malawi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I was wondering if I’d ever click those youtubes that Bulanik has above. I know now that I won’t. I just can’t handle it.
FGM, for me is like something made up (though I well know it is real). That’s how off the spectrum of behavior it is for me. What work is being done to bring the practice to a halt?
Something to consider supporting. You may have heard of it.
http://orchidproject.org/
@ Legion
@ King
I didn’t post those videos to disturb anyone.
My focus was not even, primarily, about the horrors of this kind of cutting.
What worried me was that when we look at Arab racism, by connecting it to Arab slavery practices, it is easy — far too easy — to lose a perspective about what slavery is because it is called “culture” and “marriage practices”.
We end up seeing it as only “racial”, when in fact, it far more complicated and ancient than that.
As I’ve tried to say before; when it comes to the relationship between the Arabs and Africans, a lot is not what it appears to be.
@Bulanik–
What worried me was that when we look at Arab racism, by connecting it to Arab slavery practices, it is easy — far too easy — to lose a perspective about what slavery is because it is called “culture” and “marriage practices”.
I’m so happy that you’re bringing these mutilations to the forefront during these pedantic discussions about how “my slavery was worse than your slavery.” IMO, the word slavery sanitizes this gouging that’s happening to probably hundreds of young girls this morning. I can just imagine them being held down on a table somewhere by a bunch of adults who are hushing their screams by assuring them they are becoming ever so desirable to their future husbands.
If anyone can explain and excuse these cuttings by saying it’s just their “culture”, then enslaving Africans could also be said to have been a part of European “culture”. I’m just wondering about the magnitude of horrors that “culture” can be accepted to cover.
Black People
What was the trigger for the conflict in Sudan? Black Africans got tired of the racism and abuse that was forced upon them by their White Arab countrymen. White Arabs say they’re not racist against blacks, How So? I view whitemen in a bubble so to speak. Of course, they don’t want the truth to be known. They’ve annexed North Africa for themselves, legitimize the sexual assault of blackwomen, spread Sharia Law to the unbelievers…Wonderful! In hindsight, Malcolm X lied to us. I’m sure he had full knowledge of what was taking place in Saudi Arabia, yet, sold a pipedream to blackmen in America at the same time. My love Malcolm is not the same today as it was in the past.
GoTeam
@ Jorbia
It was by accident, but thank you all the same for getting the point, Jorbia.
Sometimes, I wonder whether there’s a price to pay for being an inconvenient contributor in these discussions *.
I hadn’t intended to discuss the castration/gouging because some people want to: Isolate it. Distance themselves. Draw a veil over it.
But it was essential to say something about it because it is a necessary feature of enslavement. In that context:
It prepares the young female for violence to her vagina, and her person, in later life.
She is made into a hole: a wife.
Her will is broken.
She knows what she was intended and shall be used for.
What she is = a SLAVE.
It’s been that way for thousands of years in Africa and the Arab world.
(* Note this comment:
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/arab-slavery/#comment-157834)
@ Tyrone
You say:
I won’t say much, but first, this is what many Sudanese Arabs look like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abdelmahmood_Abdelhaleem_UNDP_2009.jpg
Or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sudan_-_smiling_lady.jpg
As you mention Saudi Arabia, to the best of my knowledge all the Muslims I know do not consider the Saudis as representative of Islam. Saudi Arabia is a very powerful and very rich embarrassment to many Muslims, I heard, but not representative. A little bit like saying polygamous Mormons are representative of Christians. I know that’s a bad example, they are both ‘puritanical’, ‘intolerant’ or ‘ultra-conservative’.
They are perfect for non-Muslims in the western world to point at and say: “That’s what REAL Islam is. Those are REAL Arabs. You’re not fooling me.”
@Bulanik–
Sometimes, I wonder whether there’s a price to pay for being an inconvenient contributor in these discussions
Well, I’m already inconvenient contributor #1 here, but the payoff for me is that I can say what I want.
I may be banned but until then, I will say what’s on my mind.
This quietness among Blacks here about these mutilations of young girls in Africa is the same type of quietness that some here criticize Whites for when atrocities against Black Americans take place here. If any Whites were doing this to African women, there would be constant shrieking and mass demonstrations here, but since it’s Blacks doing it, the silence is so loud until it’s deafening among most Black Americans, aside from a few like Alice Walker. Most Black Americans, even many Black American women, have a double standard when it comes to aggression against Black women especially when Black men are the perpetrators. They will usually find a way to excuse it or blame the woman. In this case, they fall back on the excuse of “culture.” At least you put it out there. That’s all you can do.
@ Jorbia
I am not sure what to call this.
Does it stem from a romantic notion about Africa? Is it pure embarrassment? Or is it a cultivated, moral blindness perhaps?
What I have learned in this discussion and what takes my breath away about it, is some people believe this subject:
1. is irrelevant to Arab racism against blacks, or,
2. believe that this horror was something inflicted on blacks by Arabs.
It’s probably hard to accept that Arabs and Africans share a great deal, and the castration and gouging out of female genitals is something done that was/is widespread in Arabia, too. It follows then, that the Arabs didn’t have to do this to African girls and women — because many, many of these girls and women were already broken, mutilated/castrated, and perfect slaves.
Why on earth did the Arabs want African women and girls most?
******************************************************************************************
With regard to your general point about black Americans, I am not American and have never lived in the US, so I can only speak as a European outsider.
I can only speak in very sweeping generalizations, generalizations which are UNTRUE of individuals, and UNFAIR to many men and women I know who are black and American, men and women, and do not think, feel or react in this way at all, because they are thoughtful, sensitive people who know far, far more about what it means to be black and American than I ever could.
That said, as far as the aggression towards black women go, yes, and yes again —– the women are as shockingly well-trained as their already-castrated, enslaved African sisters discussed here, the very same ones who hold down their innocent daughters and gouge out their parts, stifle their screams and tell their daughters to shut up and stop crying, the ones who say afterwards:
see, what are you squealing for, it was only a scratch.
Perhaps this is why Alice Walker seems so disliked and discredited. That she is painted as no more than a CIA plant to destroy the black family and such.
Yes, this one little female did that, all by herself… well of course!
Because Alice Walker invented Female Genital Mutilation thousands of years ago and has perpetuated it on millions of human beings to this day.
So when she writes about it, it makes her a bad person and anti-black men for daring to pick up her pen…
Look, Jorbia, I’m not an Alice Walker fan myself, but I am not blind either.
It seems, that maybe if she is ignored and spoken contemptuously about, then that shunning and undermining (cough) will make what she says simply a lie…
Since in her writing she says that men are abusive to females then it CANNOT be a representation of a culture that is abusive of women.
Just the outpourings of a bad person.
Why this? Well, I suppose because racism is the important and serious thing. Thus a sensible female, a ready-broken, well-trained , and really, really sensible Black female-soldier, one who knows she is truly Black, and understands the beauty of Blackness, puts that first and will be silent on subjects that addresses this aggression. So yeah, let the castration go on.
Its a mischaractorisation to imply men on this blog arnt horrified that female clitoris mutilation is a custom as described by you all.
I never said Arabs were the only ones who practiced it, and, the thing about Arabs tied into racism about wanting black women from Africa because they already were mutilated, is a subject that is much better covered about attitudes shared across cultures how men have treated women.If both cultures were practicing this, there is more in common with sexism than racism NOT THAT RACISM DIDNT PLAY A PART IN THE ARAB SEARCH FOR WOMEN FOR THE HAREM..they do cross at certain points, but, as Ive said before, there needs to be a thread based on male cultures that use clitoril mutilation alone to really do it justice
the actual fact is, I sarcasticly ridiculed the taking of women and girls for sexual slavery using oragasims as part of the sarcasm. And it is my firm opinion that sexual slavery is as bad as any. And, sexual slavery absolutly and without doubt, INCLUDES ANY GENTIAL MUTILATION INVOLVED
Dont railroad anything I have said as though Im not concerned with female genital mutilation. If it is on the inside of a culture, that is no defence. There just is a differance of one people traveling many miles to kidnap people to take them far away for all kinds of forced labor, and , the people who practice it in the inside of their culture, ….BUT NO DIFFERANCE IN CRUELTY TO THE WOMAN
Sex for me is a mutual orgasmic activity, the pleasure of the woman is as important as mine and mutual pleasure and orgasms is the goal. I dont relate at all to any practices that would not let a woman attain orgasm and especialy violent mutilation of the genetals.
The referance to male castration in Arab slavery to Africans, is totaly to counter the notion that the slavery was much more than just a certain time of work and then you are free
I never even compared that to Atlantic slavery, I only mentioned that to have to say “yes, Atlantic slavery was more brutal”, to show I can agree with the people making that point…that was never my original point or objective
So, please, Jorba and Bulanik, dont mischaractorise the points being made or the positions by males on this blog
Your points are extremly valid, but I dont like implications of what Im saying distorted
For no other reason than concern for the pain my son could feel at that moment, i didnt let him be circumcised…I was, and its the standared custom, but, I just didnt want it for him to go through any pain in his genital area at any age…so , female clitoral mutilation is something I absolutly abhor…this kind of implication of we males on here are lost like deer in the headlights on this subject is just plain wrong
“The referance to male castration in Arab slavery to Africans, is totaly to counter the notion that the slavery was much more than just a certain time of work and then you are free”
means “that slavery was just a certain time of work and then set free”
Im the one saying it is much more
@ B.R. about circumcision
I can understand that you didn’t want your child to go through such pain that is circumcision, but you cannot equate circumcision to clitoral mutilation for the following reasons:
1. While clitoral mutilation can prevent a woman from sexual pleasure, it’s definitely not the case with circumcision.
2. By circumcising your son, not only will he not remember the pain, but besides he might even thank you for it makes men genital cuter and more efficient.(based only on my own experience and friends opionions)
3. Circumcision has can also be seen as a matter of hygiene; which is not the case for clitoral mutilation.
4. To be overprotective to a child is not always the best option for his education.
So consider these reasons. You might want to change your mind. Cheers.
@Bulanik–
I’m an American by nationality, but I have a multicultural orientation since I only partly grew up in America. My parents and many family members are Black Americans though. So, I’ve lived here for extended periods.
I am not sure what to call this.
Does it stem from a romantic notion about Africa?
To an extent, yes. Many Black Americans of the more militant talking type view Africa as the land of milk and honey. In their simplistic minds, Africans are good and Whites are bad. So when Africans do foul things, it’s always because Whites have somehow made them do those things. They don’t realize that they have indirectly accepted the view that Africans are childlike beings who have no defense against White manipulation. Their world would spin off the axis if forced to face that some Africans are just as flawed and vile by nature as some Whites and the next human being,
Is it pure embarrassment? Or is it a cultivated, moral blindness perhaps?
I wouldn’t call it real embarrassment because only relative few Black Americans feel any actual connection to Africans. But they know that Whites connect them to Africans. Since they know that and know that these mutilations are seen as barbaric by some Whites, then it would make those relatively few Black Americans feel embarrassed. If Whites didn’t view it like that, it would’t register with barely any of them. African culture is dark and mysterious to most Blacks here.Some may use an African name or wear African clothes during Black History month, celebrate Kwanzaa or may learn a few surface things about an African culture, but other than that, they are clueless about actual African culture of any region. Many of them threaten to go back to their African roots mainly to rebel against White mainstream culture, not because of any genuine love or appreciation of African cultures.
Moral blindness? It’s not that simple. Black male aggression or vile treatment of Black women here is most often blamed on Whites or on the women. The Black male is mostly viewed here, by other Black Americans as childlike, helpless and not responsible for his failings. So, they would tend to extend this view also to African males. Even when a Black man or woman succeeds here, aside from in sports or entertainment, they usually credit the success to Whites too and say it’s because Whites allowed it.
Many Black Americans lack a sense of self-agency. Whatever happens among them is usually because (to them) Whites did something.
Yes, even though Alice Walker became rich and famous for The Color Purple, she has paid dearly for being outspoken against Black male sexism.
Many Black American women have to battle daily against Black male sexism so they are being gouged too in serious ways. Most of that sexism they face comes only from Black males because White women have struck down most of the worst White male sexist structures.
So if racism were to disappear today, Black women would still have to battle the demon of sexism.
SD , I didnt really want to have to answer what you said, but if I dont, it will be picked up later that that is how I think…I absolultly dont think circumcision is equal to genital mutilation…Im mentioning it to say how bad it made me feel to think of my son going through that, hearing him cry at the blood test (by the way, there is a debate on the cleanliness issue, if a person isnt bathing regularly , it may be , but, it never has been a problem for my son)..so clitoral mutilation makes me feel even worse , since of course it is much more horrific.
Since I came in again, I just want to clarify, I said some men/boys were castrated in the Arab slave trade , I dont mean it was all the men . And, again, I want to clarify that when I say slave trade for sex, or sex slave trade, that includes all physical abuses including any genital mutilations….the boys castrated were destined for the harems also , so, they are a part of the sex slave trade, and, it was worse for the women if clitoral mutilation was involved and then having to perform over and over again…
there is no excuse if some Africans were doing these practices also , but at that point it is about the cruelty of man towards woman, the catagory all these abuses fall under about clitoral mutilations.I never would imply that Africa was just pristine purity ,its the way both the Atlantic and Arab slave trade descimated west and east Africa and the other places there , to drag out slaves for what ever their purposes. There has to be some kind of desician about how they feel about the people they were taking in those numbers , that gave them justification.
People should feel free to describe what this is , and its horror. I just think people shouldnt asume people are thinking a certain way.
As far as black American males being aware, I beleive there are black American males on this blog who are concerned about clitoral mutilation in Africa, including Abagond , even without knowing the absolute inside details. And, I know there are black American males , who would admit they might not have heard it before but would be very concerned if they heard the facts.
In general, all over the world, people are provincial
Nobody on here really knows what is going on where I live, except some people in the past who posted who live where I live also
Shout out to Ace, who I saw posting on another thread…you havent been here in a while…always like your posts
What? This is not about men, BR.
No. No, and again no. What you are saying was NOT implied.
YOU have only inferred this.
What the men on this thread such as Jared, Legion, King seem to understand, is that they they understand the relevance of this issue here, and they are sensitive to its meaning. Perhaps its made people think about the human rights issues here, widened their understanding of what slavery is, and given a perspective on Arab slavery usually left out of the ideas associated with Arab racism against blacks. Who knows?
In fact, I am quite surprised why any thoughtful and caring man here would feel under attack because Jorbia and I are discussing this subject.
I don’t think they are unlike many folks who may have under-estimated the factor of Female Genital mutilation during slavery in Africa and among Africans. And also as it Arab racism issue in particular.
You certainly did, didn’t you? and I don’t think you’d be less thoughtful and caring about this than any other male commenter here.
Why not just see it for what it is, rather than trying to split it off?
Do you think things like this fit into neat compartments? Well, they don’t.
As I mentioned earlier, Kola Boof has said more than once that Arab men did not want African women ONLY for physical their beauty, but because they are “cut”! Her own mother was a blue-black east African and her father was Egyptian Arab. Could this tell us something about the dynamic — why try to force into another category and generalize?
That is how insight is stepped on and wiped out when we think like this.
This topic is 100% spot on to this issue.
Just as the way the castration of black men by the Arabs was 100% relevant.
Like music is NOT a side note to the geography of what is supposedly racist about sub-Saharan Africa! Similarly, the treatment of Africa’s females is absolutely central to our understanding of the Arabs towards Africans.
Also, on a wider note, it may, or may not be obvious to you here, but sexism is often an accompaniment to racism. When racism affects black women, does it affect them in the same way as racism affects black men? Does the racist experience as it affects the female of the race means it stops being about racism? Racism doesn’t stop being about racism once we start talking about women, BR. Issues intersect. I’m sure you appreciate that.
African women and girls are at the centre of this discussion about Arabs and their racism. We’ve only just hit on an extremely sensitive and difficult aspect of this relationship that does fit into the stereotype of our customary interpretation of racism. Sorry to make it complicated and uncomfortable! If we want to understand this dynamic, then we have to accept some ugly truths about Africa.
In trying to stress that this is about “other cultures” and across the board and something not really related is seriously missing the point.
The fact are these: Africans were enslaving “their” women in precisely the way the Arabs were, and the Arabs used and abused this to their advantage.
The mutilation issue IS about Africa and Arabs, perhaps we should deal with it.
Correction
*We’ve only just hit on an extremely sensitive and difficult aspect of this relationship that does NOT fit into the stereotype of our customary interpretation of racism.
Excuse the many typo errors/repetitiveness in my comment above.
I hope my meaning is clear despite that.
Traditional African practices of slavery were altered to some extent beginning in the 7th century by two non-African groups of slave traders: Arab Muslims and Europeans. From the 7th to the 20th century, Arab Muslims raided and traded for black African slaves in West, Central, and East Africa, sending thousands of slaves each year to North Africa and parts of Asia. From the 15th to the 19th century, Europeans bought millions of slaves in West, Central, and East Africa and sent them to Europe; the Caribbean; and North, Central, and South America. These two overlapping waves of transcontinental slave trading made the slave trade central to the economies of many African states and threatened many more Africans with enslavement.
@Bulanik
As black people, we need to re-educate ourselves about the mixed offspring of slave barons that enslaved our people…Arabs, Spaniards, Portugese, etc. They love to come around black folk. “We’re of african descent, No different than you are.” Naturally, they expect black folk to let their guard down around them because they have african blood within them. I’ve always been suspicious of mixed whites precisely because of their hypocrisy. Blackmen in this country are pledging allegiance to a religion that is wreaking havoc in North Africa and in Nigeria to the west. We’ve been led to believe that white arabs are allies of our race, Really? The same racial hypocrisy exist with other mixed whitemen as well. What point are you trying to make Tyrone? Why do we continue to fall into the “We’re of African Descent” trap that has been laid by the male offspring of white slaveholders? What do they want from us? Is it about the natural resources of Africa? Is it about access to blackwomen? Is it about money? Bulanik, we as blackmen have a major problem on our hands that we refuse to deal with…We’ve allowed our emotions to get the best of us. Arabs are behaving as they are because blackmen are stupid…Bottomline! Islam has nothing to do with me, i could care less about Mecca and Medina. Religion is a yoke around the necks of our people…Scary!
GoTeam
@Bulanik
The fact that black muslims want to keep their black christian kin down is even more insane. Again, another example of so-called blackmen trying to impress other men that don’t look like them. In this particular case, white middle-eastern men. Why are blackmen in Africa bowing to a religion that was forced upon them by outside invaders anyway? At some point, blackmen in North Africa and globally have to draw a line in the sand. As i’ve said before and will continue to say till i’m blue in the face…Men don’t care about the welfare of other men not of their tribe. Meaning, men associate with other men for financial gain and access to their women. The pattern never changes. The chaos that we see in North Africa right now is so predictable. Africa has natural resources, land mass, blackwomen…A Perfect Storm! I blame us as blackmen for a lot of this insanity. Other men slap us down, yet, we continue to run behind them just the same. Blackmen in North Africa are dazed and confused, they’re easy marks for those that want to enslave them…Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, etc. Why do we feel the need to validate the beliefs of others, Bulanik?
GoTeam
@ Tyrone. Wow, you seriously ask me the toughest questions…
Omg, I don’t think I can answer this! I don’t even know where to start, but, I’ll try. You are talking about 2013, but superimposing it over more than a 1000 of years of history. Don’t expect a simple answer! LOL.
Look, I know that in the USA Arabs are marked as “white”.
Yet, did those in those photos of Sudanese Arabs, did they look white to you? But tell me this, who pushed those supposed “racial” differences about superior and inferior, true-black and Arabized black? Well, it was the British. Remember Rwanda? What was behind that…religion? Nope. The Germans enforced the idea that one ethnicity was superior to another because one group supposedly looked more “Caucasian” than the other.
Tyrone, can I ask you:
Do you believe that Islam is basically violent?
Do you believe that Africa’s history black people turned to Islam because they were forced at the point of a sword?
I am asking because I have seen this implied over and over by other commenters on this blog.
I am NOT asking this because I do not believe conversion by violence never happened anywhere at anytime. NO! I ask you because I want your opinion, as you are not alone in thinking this no matter what the evidence is. Maybe I’m mistaken, to say this, but that is my impression.
Please correct me on this if I am wrong.
But since you are talking about a very long time-span, from before the USA was created, and before Arabs were whites, do you realize you are imposing a white-and-black thing over this which is a modern invention?
– Can you explain to me how come the North Africans have been in North Africa since the time of the Ancient Egyptians?
– Can you explain to me how come the North Africans, who aren’t always Arabs, but are actually also Berbers, have been in that continent since before recorded history, and thousands of years before Islam was even created?
– Can you explain how come you think the North Africans are “invaders” but not the Egyptians? Egypt is in North Africa, too, and closer to Arabia, isn’t it? How come?
– Can you tell how come Islam has so many practices that are identical to many African religions?
– Can you tell me why Islam is as old in Africa as it is in Arabia?
– Can you tell me why Arabia was multi-racial and not only the home of Arabs?
Tyrone, could I also ask you this: How much do you know about African Islam?
Don’t get me wrong — I’m certainly not learned about this, and you might not like what I am asking, but from what I’ve gathered over the years, many, or most Africans do not have direct access to the Koranic scripture and do not know Arabic. Afaik, the more or less qualified custodians of the Scriptures have themselves become the new intermediaries, and they are the ones who have replaced the healers, the fetishists and the other members of the secret societies without which traditional religions could not function.
This means a lot of what a lot of people take for granted about Islam in Africa is based on bias.
The process of Islamization was NOT done through violence! by white Arabs. That process, over the centuries, was more like community-building than because people AGREED with the religious message.
There’s a lot of flexibility inside that. That means it wasn’t hard to gain access to the Muslim community: just a change of name and the recitation, before witnesses, of the profession of faith (shadâda), was all that was necessary to be a convert.
After that, the regular fulfilment of a Muslim’s religious duties and the deepening of religious knowledge will follow perhaps only a generation or 2 after. Do you get that picture? This means that there was no real break in the passage from one community to the other, but simply a progressive breaking away from the one and a progressive integration into the other.
People kept a lot of their old ways…
What I am saying Tyrone is this: most Islamization was done by Africans themselves. People who shared the same life, spoke the same language, lived in the same cultural world entirely. That means for African Muslims, “Africanicity” and Islam are in no way opposed. I know that is against the preferred image…being under the yoke of white Arab invading.
For many, Islam is not an imported religion. Or inflicted by bloodletting.
For many, abandoning the Muslim religion is equivalent to the rejection of all their family and clan traditions, it’s too intermingled to separate. One must conclude that Islam, in its traditional African form, is entirely a part of the African cultural heritage and an African reality.
Tyrone, that said, on the subject of racism, Arab supremacy exists and is not a better breed than white supremacy.
The fact is that thousands of Berbers and Black-Sudanese people still identify themselves as Arab. That is the process of racist ‘Arabization’ which ‘cleanses’ these people of their identity.
It’s there, make no mistake. In today’s world, many Arabs will to point the finger at white supremacy, whilst they sweep the realities of Arab racism under the carpet… That’s how it works. In trying to answer your question, I didn’t want to leave out vital info about Islam and about Arabs.
I have only attempted to give a fuller, and fair picture.
(Although I think I’ve failed in doing that.)
@Bulanik
As always, you make me think B…Thank You! Any sane person can see the african influence in arab culture, that goes without saying. The names are similiar…Malik, Bilal, Asa, Khadijah. The fashion is more or less the same…a lot of color, long flowing garments, a lot of bling(Black Folk Indeed). Yes, arabs are of african descent. But, the whites that inhabit North Africa and Central Asia aren’t black anymore, Why Not? Whitemen can answer this question better than me. Blackwomen were raped by Sir Pale, morphed into mulattos, and eventually became white…Racial Pattern! I was sympathetic to muslims in the past precisely because of their african link, What Changed? The refusal of Min. Farrakhan and other black muslims to express outrage at the genocide in Sudan affected me in a very personal way. Malcolm X made me the blackman that i am, in the political sense. If not for Malcolm, i would be just another lost brotha in the wilderness. I would search all over for comments and clips, hoping that black muslims in the US would speak out on the issue. I purchased a Final Call from a brotha on the block, and happened to come across a paragraph in the paper that changed my view of muslims and islam in a major way. I can’t recall the exact quote, but, Min. Farrakhan appeared not to be bothered by what was taking place in Sudan. All of the black churches he visited over the years, all of the pro-black rhetoric meant nothing. He put a religion above the welfare and safety of his race…Blasphemy! I’ve never forgiven The Nation for that. Islam instilled the don’t give a damn’ spirit in me, but, i was lied to. Bulanik, how can a group of people that are born of Africa hate that which made them? What does the term “We’re of African Descent” really mean? Is it a footnote in history books, or, does it mean what it says?
GoTeam
PS…What does it mean to you Bulanik?
@ Tyrone
I didn’t realize until now that were talking about the Islam in the US and the Islam of the Nation of Islam. The latter is quite different to the Islam I was describing. The religion is not the same as the people. Although most Arabs are Muslim not all of them are, some Arabs are Christian and some Arabs are Jews. Also, most Muslims are not Arabs!
Muslim and ‘Arab’ are not the same thing.
Remember too, many, many so-called Arabs are not really white at all.
I’m not sure what kind of Muslim Minister Farrakhan is, or what kind of Islam the Nation of Islam is. It’s not very ‘Arab’. It sounds more in keeping with the path of religious sect founded and practiced by people of African descent in the USA. This makes them basically syncretic: their beliefs are a combination of many schools of thought. Some of that advocates things that seem compatible with traditional Islam, for example black supremacy, separatism and anti-semitism.
The anti-Sudan attitude isn’t to my liking either. The racism we are talking about EXISTS, but it is not a fair representation of Islam and many Muslims.
It not not even fully accurate about Arabs, if you think about it.
In fact, the Nation of Islam is NOT Islam as I understand it at all, and it would not surprise me if traditional Muslims and their organizations would want nothing to do with Minister Farrakhan and his religion because of its open and hostile racism against other religions and ethnic groups.
As for the Sudanese issue, yes, I understand your dismay and pain about the treatment of the Christian Sudanese, the ones the Arabized Muslim Sudanese call “blacks”. The blind eye taken towards the atrocities committed against them. No compassion. Total silence.
I think NOI wants to build as many international bridges as possible, especially in the African nations, and denying enslavement of the Christian Sudanese is a political move to strengthen that link, and show solidarity. The politics being played is to say that Christian slaves taken by Arab Muslims is simply another “Jewish conspiracy” to break black unity. The idea is that black people should not let themselves get sucked into Jewish lies, as the Jews are the ones who are really behind black enslavement, and always were.
So this is a religious/political choice and certainly not a human one.
* Correction: Some of that advocates things that seem INCOMPATIBLE with traditional Islam,
Is this for real?????????????? Does anyone know? If it is, well…
http://basees.blogspot.fi/2012/09/blog-post_29.html
@Bulanik
The Nation of Islam has no political standing in the black race anymore. Members of the organization can’t claim to represent the interests of the black race, when their primary aim has been to kiss the behinds of white arab muslims who don’t even like them. The same group of men who think it justifiable to enslave black africans to a religion they don’t want. As blackmen, we seek validation in others, which is a mistake. Racism is a problem in arab and persian culture. A lot of blackmen in the US got caught up in the fact that anglo americans and europeans were targets of militant islamists…an enemy of my enemy is a friend. Ignoring the fact that white arabs enslaved africans as well. Bulanik, blackmen are so naive about the world outside of the US. Whitemen behave in like fashion, doesn’t matter if they have african blood in them or not…blackmen need to understand this ugly truth. A lot of so-called militant blackmen are punking themselves right now…running around with so-called mixed whitemen who view them as simpletons. Whites having african blood in them is historical context, nothing more nothing less. They enjoy the same perks as any other white person on this planet. They have no valid reason to deny whiteness, other than, their motives are impure. Racism against blacks is a global problem. In Asia, dark skin is frowned upon, many black-americans are unaware of this. In latin-america, authentic blackness is frowned upon…the lighter the skin, the greater the perks. India has the (Untouchables)…dark-skinned persons of african descent who are treated like trash by white-indians. Why is all of this relevant to black people? All non-black people have issues with black people, whether they be anglo, asian, native-american, polynesian, etc. Race is not a fairy tale, come on black people? What are we doing? Why do we waste time trying to be liked others who don’t like themselves? Kumbaya is a pipedream that can never be. Black folk kissing butt is not kosher to me, we need to get off our knees…literally and figuratively speaking!
I wrote this on the other post about the Arab slave trade. I think it belongs here too:
As an African i’m really disappointed by the tone of this post. It’s almost making light over arab slavery. Why on earth are we walking on eggshells? Arab slavery isn’t based on skin colour? Arabs have been committing sick atrocities against Africans (blacks) for far too long now. Excusing themselves because of our ‘evil’ dark skin, calling us Kaffirs – regardless of conversion to Islam. Many of you living in the Western world turn a blind eye to this and only voice your opinion when Darfur becomes the charity flavour of the month. Africans too long have been brutalized and tortured by these people. And everyone, turns a blind eye, blacks in the diaspora included. This discussion would sound very different if the author and commenters were from/living in Africa. Just because the oppressor has brown skin, doesn’t mean they are less evil or our suffering isn’t ‘as bad’. The suffering is REAL and slavery in it’s humiliating glory is very much alive. Not some PBS documentary. I’m really disappointed this time Abagond, you can do so much better.
The Cynic made this comment:
“Anti-Black Arab prejudice is not a central theme in my life, so it’s hard to care much about what some of them think about me or any other person of color.”
And he is correct. It is ignorant to assume that just because I skin might be similar or you have ancestors from the same continent as me, you are automatically going to care about my peoples suffering or present genocide. Of course not. South African Apartheid didn’t directly affect African Americans, so there’s no need for them to care, in the same way that Darfur or Mali doesn’t affect African Americans, so why should they care?
The Nation of Islam would rather protest for Palestine than African muslims oppressed by arab muslims.
I had a debate with an american woman the other day, she seemed to find it blasphemous that I would compare the burning of entire villages in Chad to Rosewood and Tulsa. She failed to see the fact that both incidents had families that were massacared, there lives, livelihood and land completely destroyed and burned down and their governments doing nothing about it because they are seen as ‘inferior’, no compensation, nothing. She still couldn’t see the comparison and thought I was being disrespectful comparing it to ‘some African village’ (her words). This idea of ‘My pale oppressor is worse than your brown oppressor’ is dangerous to say the least. It’s no fun when your oppressors are both brown & white. They’re both evil as hell! This isn’t a competition. I truly wish more people would hear the stories of Africans who are/have suffered as a result of Arab racism. You would immediately get on your knees and thank your God for your life the way it is!
Where is Kola Boof when you need her?! As crazy as some people think she may be, when it comes to this topic, she knows EXACTLY what is going on.
@sam
You said
“Is this for real?????????????? Does anyone know? If it is, well…
http://basees.blogspot.fi/2012/09/blog-post_29.html”
You know what? It probably is. Advertising the outdated inhumane practice of slavery using modern technological tools. Oh the irony.
gees, Roxanne, where were you when I could have used some backup
@ Roxanne
The history and stories of Arab racism are key and central.
But is this apparent silence, or wrong tone you have noticed only a question of not knowing the stories of Africans? I would suggest it is not.
It is also how these narratives are USED and how the reality of Arab’s anti-black racism will be manipulated.
In this case, it is what Abagond calls The Arab Trader Argument.
Roxanne, if you have the time, you might have a look at the thread which discusses that argument, and motives behind it.
I’d be interested in your insights.
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/the-arab-trader-argument/
There’s little difference between this:
“She still couldn’t see the comparison and thought I was being disrespectful comparing it [the burning of Rosewood etc.] to [the burning of] ‘some African village’ (her words).”
and this:
“I truly wish more people would hear the stories of Africans who are/have suffered as a result of Arab racism. You would immediately get on your knees and thank your God for your life the way it is!”
Both are going for the gold in the Oppression Olympics.
“Subsaharan” Africa must economically progress to the point that she is not seen as fair game to Arabs, Asians and westerners. When most Africans are considered middle-class and there are immigrants TO Africa, and when there is governance based on protecting Africa’s resources and people from exploitation, harm and belittling, a strong military aimed at protecting African countries interests, then we will see a changing of the tides. This is the ONLY way that racism against blacks and those of African-descent across the board will stop (at least overtly).
Tell that to African leaders who are addicted to lining their own pockets with Arab/European/Chinese gold and spitting on the poor of their countries.. We can bemoan this on end, but the fact remains that most African countries’ leaders are uninterested in our plight, and Africans (and those in the diaspora) of means aren’t donating enough time, money and expertise in the goal of raising Africa to the future I mentioned earlier. If only I had the means I would see Africa rise to the future she should have, and I’m sure many of you would too.. but our leaders couldn’t give a damn about it, and would actually prefer the status-quo. Thus we continue to suffer from discrimination and denigration wherever we go. Hope this serves as a warning to whoever follows in our stead.
”Islam did not allow Muslims to make slaves of other Muslims. So Arabs mainly got slaves from lands beyond the Muslim world: Europe, Central Asia, West Africa, Nubia, Ethiopia, East Africa, etc.”
and then you show a map of the islamic expansion with the exception of the Horn of Africa yet the funny thing is the Horn of Africa had islam BEFORE north africa, and somalia has been trading partners with the arab world for centuries, even playing a role in the arab slave trade